Not So Obvious: Realistic replicas of grenades (belt buckles, lighters, paperweights, inert training grenades, and other gadgets) are not allowed on planes.

On a regular basis, checkpoint lanes and checkpoints are closed because of novelty or inert grenades and grenade shaped items. When checkpoints are closed… Flights are delayed and missed causing the airline and passengers major frustration and a loss of money.

So why is it such a big deal if the grenades are inert or just a novelty item? Well, that’s why passengers usually don’t think twice about bringing these items. They know inert grenades or novelty grenade shaped items can’t cause any harm. However, we don’t know that. All we see on the x-ray is a realistic image of a grenade complete with pin and spoon and we have to go through the motions.

As a TSO back in 2002, I witnessed the checkpoint at Islip MacArthur Airport coming to a screeching halt because the image of a hand grenade popped up on the x-ray screen. It ended up being a metal lighter in the shape of a classic pineapple grenade with the spoon, pin and all. Even though it was a small lighter that would fit in the palm of your hand, it appeared as a larger than life grenade on the screen.

Grenade shaped belt buckles, lighters, paperweights, inert training grenades, and other gadgets can all look like the real deal on the x-ray screen. Please leave them at home or mail them to your destination.

122 comments:

Bob, when your staff are searching someone or his belongings and find something that looks like it might be a grenade (but based on your past experience, seems more likely to be a realistic replica), and you "go through the motions", why do those motions involve shutting down the checkpoint or a checkpoint lane? Why would they involve any more than the motions required when you find any other item that is deemed by TSA to be of potential danger -- like 4oz of liquid in a single container (which might be part of a liquid explosive, but probably isn't) or a shoe that slipped through without being X-rayed (which might be a shoe-bomb but probably isn't)?

When something that "looks like a liquid explosive" is found, not only do you not close the checkpoint or even a lane, but you just toss it in a barrel with other potentially-explosive items.

Sad news article, poor kid. On a side not a supervisor here in Ketchikan teams up with non TSA employees to mail passengers "Confiscated" items back to them. That kid would have left our checkpoint knowing his sword and gun would arrive at his house eventually. Yes we know the whole kid with a toy gun thing is ridiculous. We know that not allowing a grenade made out of soap on an airplane is also ridiculous. However, if you were on a plane and someone stood up saying they had a gun/grenade would you stop to check if it was real before panic hit you? Even if a guy was joking with his kids toy gun would you feel comfortable if a man stood up holding a gun shaped object in his hand saying he had a gun nobody move? Bob is right the hole replica thing really complicates the checkpoint because we think its the real deal. However the real reason we have the rule is the gun doesn't have to be real to make people on an airplane panic.

My post is referring to what these items look like on the X-ray screen. Once the item is spotted on the screen, things go into motion before the bag is ever opened.

Bob

This doesn't jive with my experiences. On two separate occasions I have forgotten "objectionable" items in a carry-on bag.

The first time, it was a bottle of orange juice. The bag went through the scanner 2-3 times while the TSA employee asked if I had left a liquid inside. I had forgotten and specified that I had not. Finally the employee opened the bag in front of me and upon finding the juice tossed it in the garbage, scanned the bag a final time, and I went on my way.

The second time it was a butter knife, from lunch the previous day, which ended up having a "serrated" edge. As serrated as is possible on a butter knife that is. The bag went through, I realized immediately when they asked if there was anything inside what it was and stated as such. They removed it, escorted me out of line so I could check the bag and that was that. (I actually had the time to return it to my car.)

In both cases, an object was noticed which was "hazardous". I'll give you the butter knife as I wouldn't expect an x-ray to differentiate metal strips. But, even with the juice I would hardly state that "things [went] into motion before the bag [was] ever opened". In fact "things" never went into motion, unless you include TSA employees reacting to what was clearly commonplace oversight on the part of a traveler.

Again, I'll give you that something that is actually designed to look like a bomb probably warrants a bit more caution than a bottle of liquid, which couldn't be practically used as a bomb. But this speaks more to the failings of your scanning techniques and over-the-top response than it does the danger of actually encountering even a real explosive device.

I suppose simple, non-serrated butter knives should also be banned. The only reason for banning a replica grenade is that it could be confused with an actual grenade. Likewise, a non-serrated butter knife or 100 ml bottle of liquid could easily be misconstrued as a serrated butter knife or 101 ml of liquid. I'm not sure I understand why these "replicas" are allowed, while others are banned.

Bob was referring to a grenade on the xray screen. A replica grenade, even the grenade belt buckle, can look very similar to a real grenade on an xray screen. So the "grenade" is treated as though it is real. As such the bomb squad or law enforcement are called before the bag even leaves the machine.

As for your oranje juice and knife, if it does not appear to be an assembled explosive device, there is no reason to get the ball rolling as with the grenades.

First, I completely agree with your rationale about replica grenades; if something looks like an explosive on the Xray, you obviously do have to treat it like an explosive to protect the public and your own officers.

But I strongly disagree with your policy on unrealistic-looking replicas and objects which look obviously like toys.

However the real reason we have the rule is the gun doesn't have to be real to make people on an airplane panic.

Yes, someone waving a Pirates of the Caribbean sword could, perhaps, cause a few moments of panic. But is the TSA's job to protect people from panic, or to protect planes from crashing?

It would not be pleasant -- to say the least -- to suffer a few moments of panic before it became obvious that a Disney toy was not a real weapon. But ultimately, no harm would occur. No-one carrying even a real gun or knife will ever be allowed onto a flight deck again, let alone someone carrying a Disney toy. So while the few moments of panic you describe would be unpleasant, it would also be the total whole extent of the "damage."

While it would be nice if the TSA could protect us from any in-flight discomforts, that is not, and should not be, their job.

The TSA's one and only job should be to prevent passengers from being injured or killed by terrorists, and to prevent planes from being hijacked, blown up, or crashed. And anything -- anything -- that distracts TSA officers from focusing on that one critical objective is a distraction that reduces their effectiveness.

In order to effectively focus on its one narrow goal (preventing passengers from being injured or killed and planes from being hijacked or destroyed), the TSA must stop distracting the attention of their officers.

In order to have zero tolerance for dangerous items, TSA must have 100% tolerance for non-dangerous items: When encountering a non-dangerous item, the officer's response should be "Move along, leave me alone, I have to keep my attention focused." Instead, TSO's are constantly allowing themselves to be distracted by things which obviously pose no threat (which, at this point, probably includes knives, since no-one will ever hijack a plane with a knife again).

In summary, the TSA attitude should be "If it can't crash a plane or kill people, we can't spend a moment of our time on it, since we have much more important things to do."

Quoted:" TSOWilliamReed said... Sad news article, poor kid. On a side note a supervisor here in Ketchikan teams up with non TSA employees to mail passengers "Confiscated" items back to them."---------------------As a TSM, while what you are doing may be "nice" from a csr service standpoint, it is against policy and causes confusion when other airports follow policy and tell pax we don't return voluntarily surrenedered (we don't "confiscate) items and can open us up to other issues. If a pax surrenders an item it belongs to the gov't to dispose of as is properly. It is not up to you guys to decide to send it back. Also, you are now taking responsibility for that item and if it gets lost in the process, the TSA now has to replace it.Good csr service, poor application of the rules. i wouldn't broadcast on an open forum that you guys are disregarding rules. It's bad enough all the flack we take when we follow them.

Anon sez - "It would not be pleasant -- to say the least -- to suffer a few moments of panic before it became obvious that a Disney toy was not a real weapon. But ultimately, no harm would occur. No-one carrying even a real gun or knife will ever be allowed onto a flight deck again, let alone someone carrying a Disney toy. So while the few moments of panic you describe would be unpleasant, it would also be the total whole extent of the "damage."

I disagree with you on this point. If someone uses a replica item to inspire a panic on an airliner - it is a threat to the airliner. While it is not a "real" bomb or a real "knife" or a real "gun" it can create a "real" situation. When panic starts for any reason, the people around the situation feed off of that panic quite often. What can start as a couple of people near the individual being a bit worried, can inspire uncontrolled situations quickly. Say an individual has a replica grenade on the plane, this causes passengers a, b, and c to start fidgeting and speaking loudly in a minor form of panic. Passengers d, e, f, all the way through passenger g3 to panic in an uncontrolled manner - all other passengers in between them are in danger from the panicking persons. Have you looked at the pictures of Richard Reid when they brought him off the plane? The passengers beat the everloving stuffings out of him (rightly so I might add). What is not shown or widespread was the other passengers injured in the melee. In a situation like Reid, it is a warranted scrum to end a "real" threat, with a replica item, it is an unwarranted scrum to end a "fake" threat. It could place innocents in danger for no reason. I think the policy is enforced this way (in part) to head off this type of situation.

TSM, been here.... said... As a TSM, while what you are doing may be "nice" from a csr service standpoint, it is against policy and causes confusion when other airports follow policy and tell pax we don't return voluntarily surrenedered (we don't "confiscate) items and can open us up to other issues. If a pax surrenders an item it belongs to the gov't to dispose of as is properly. It is not up to you guys to decide to send it back. Also, you are now taking responsibility for that item and if it gets lost in the process, the TSA now has to replace it.

First, it is confiscation. Stop lying to us. Or do your regulations tell you to tell us it's not confiscation? What paragraph and section say "You will never refer to confiscation as confiscation, only as 'voluntary surrender'"? Or is that information secret like the answer to every other non-sensical rule?

Second, he's actually doing the right thing with the confiscated items. You and the rest of the TSA should learn from him, not tell him to learn from you. TSO William Reed deserves to be commended and promoted for his actions, which is why I predict the revere will happen.

TSM, been here.... said... As a TSM, while what you are doing may be "nice" from a csr service standpoint, it is against policy and causes confusion when other airports follow policy and tell pax we don't return voluntarily surrenedered (we don't "confiscate) items and can open us up to other issues. If a pax surrenders an item it belongs to the gov't to dispose of as is properly. It is not up to you guys to decide to send it back. Also, you are now taking responsibility for that item and if it gets lost in the process, the TSA now has to replace it.

I made a trip from Dallas to Lexington and my scissors were OK with the TSO when I left. When I was on the return leg the TSO at Lexington didn't like my scissors.

So I see it now, when I was returning home to Dallas from Lexington my scissors weren't confiscated, they were "voluntarily surrendered".

I guess I could have made other arrangements for my scissors, such as leaving them in my checked bag (oops, its already on the conveyor belt) or I could have left them in my car (oops again, my car was 1200 miles away) or I could have left them with a friend or relative (oops, it was a business trip and there weren't any friends or relatives nearby) or I could "voluntarily surrender" them.

“First, it is confiscation. Stop lying to us. Or do your regulations tell you to tell us it's not confiscation? What paragraph and section say "You will never refer to confiscation as confiscation, only as 'voluntary surrender'"? Or is that information secret like the answer to every other non-sensical rule?”---------------------------------First of all, its NOT confiscation, stop lying about it. You are free to take that item out of the sterile area and do with it what you will. If you surrender it to the TSA then that is YOUR choice, and you DO have a choice.

--------------------------------

Second, he's actually doing the right thing with the confiscated items. You and the rest of the TSA should learn from him, not tell him to learn from you. TSO William Reed deserves to be commended and promoted for his actions, which is why I predict the revere will happen.

--------------------------------

Actually, no he isn’t Ayn. He’s violating the rules. One of the very same set of rules that posters here complain that the TSO’s violate all the time. When one abandon’s an item to the TSA it is then government property. The TSA has the right to dispose of it in accordance with policy. If you don’t want to abandon it, then don’t. Just remove it from the sterile area and we TSO’s will be just as happy. Better yet, don’t bring it with you, that way you are never forced to make the decision on what to do with it. Simple, right?

If it looks like a bomb on the screen, I can totally see taking the person out of line with his bag into a room, and opening his bag carefully with a lot of controls - but not shutting down the line. This seems like bad management.

Are you kidding all of you who posted on this subject . must be the losers from "are you smarter than a 5th grader". You are actually arguing abou ta grenade real or not and you think that a few minutes of panic on a plane is OK..You all complpain if you have to wait 5 minutes on the runway.Give me a break.

It's funny that the same people who are always screaming that TSOs "ignore" or apply rules inconsistently are the ones who are now on here applauding a TSO for violating rules and mailing back prohibited items.

Just goes to show that you people are not satisfied unless a situation is in your favor, rules or not.

Quoted:"Zachary said... If it looks like a bomb on the screen, I can totally see taking the person out of line with his bag into a room, and opening his bag carefully with a lot of controls - but not shutting down the line. This seems like bad management.

July 30, 2009 2:34 PM--------------------

Are you insane?!?! We should pick up and move a bag which may contain a real bomb into a room with the person who owns it and continuing processing passengers while we "play the odds" that it's not real? WOW!

Anonymous said… Love the Monty Python reference. July 29, 2009 4:27 PM--------------Ni!!!-------------mikeq said... Your picture implies that the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch is prohibited. Is that true? Does it really resemble an actual grenade? July 29, 2009 7:18 PM------------First off, for those who don’t know, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch is purely fictional.  I know they make replicas, but I doubt they look threatening. But, I’ve never seen one, so who knows. It was just my attempt at humor. -------------Anonymous said... Anon, Bob was referring to a grenade on the xray screen. A replica grenade, even the grenade belt buckle, can look very similar to a real grenade on an xray screen. So the "grenade" is treated as though it is real. As such the bomb squad or law enforcement are called before the bag even leaves the machine. As for your oranje juice and knife, if it does not appear to be an assembled explosive device, there is no reason to get the ball rolling as with the grenades. July 30, 2009 2:52 AM--------------Thanks for the good answer!---------------uk visa law said... Bob, you're no fun any more - you know I hate travelling without my hand grenades!July 30, 2009 3:09 AM---------------Yeah, it’s not like the good old days anymore when you could take a hand grenade anywhere. ---------------Anonymous said... (Most of post edited due to length) In summary, the TSA attitude should be "If it can't crash a plane or kill people, we can't spend a moment of our time on it, since we have much more important things to do." Would you be willing to post your thoughts and response? July 30, 2009 9:11 AM----------------------If polled, I’m sure that most officers would agree with your logic. However, we have a prohibited items list that we have to adhere to. If you would like the list to be changed, I suggest writing your congressman. We need their approval to change it. --------------------Sandra said... Bob wrote:"...and we have to go through the motions." Do you know what that means, Bob? It means: "To do something in a mechanical manner indicative of a lack of interest or involvement."July 30, 2009 12:00 PM----------------------Sandra, that may be an idiom you and others use, but personally I don’t use it. When I say “going through the motions”, I am talking about setting the plan in motion and going through each part of the plan. However, now that I know that’s how you and others use it, I’ll probably choose different wording next time. Thanks for the lesson, teach. -------------------------Thanks,Blogger BobTSA Blog Team

"TSM, been here.... said... As a TSM, while what you are doing may be "nice" from a csr service standpoint, it is against policy and causes confusion when other airports follow policy and tell pax we don't return voluntarily surrenedered (we don't "confiscate) items and can open us up to other issues. If a pax surrenders an item it belongs to the gov't to dispose of as is properly. It is not up to you guys to decide to send it back. Also, you are now taking responsibility for that item and if it gets lost in the process, the TSA now has to replace it.

I made a trip from Dallas to Lexington and my scissors were OK with the TSO when I left. When I was on the return leg the TSO at Lexington didn't like my scissors.

So I see it now, when I was returning home to Dallas from Lexington my scissors weren't confiscated, they were "voluntarily surrendered".

I guess I could have made other arrangements for my scissors, such as leaving them in my checked bag (oops, its already on the conveyor belt) or I could have left them in my car (oops again, my car was 1200 miles away) or I could have left them with a friend or relative (oops, it was a business trip and there weren't any friends or relatives nearby) or I could "voluntarily surrender" them.

Yep, that's not confiscation. How silly of me."

----------------------

Or....

Oops, you could have not brought them.

Oops, you could have gone back to the airline, told them to get one of your bags bag (even if it already was on the conveyer belt) and put the scissors in there, and check it in again. This happens all the time, even if the airlines are not happy with it.

Or, oops, you could have mailed it back to yourself.

However, can you explain what "OK" means when you left Dallas; did the TSO measure them then let them go? Or did the scissors remain in the bag as it went through the x-ray?

If the scissors were over 4 inches (the blade) they should not have gone through Dallas in your carry-on luggage if they were measured.

But sometimes when you work x-ray you judge the size of an item. Sometimes your judgement is wrong, sometimes it is correct. So sometimes you let something go - like scissors - when it shouldn't.

You didn't provide enough info to tell exactly how the TSO in Dallas approved of your scissors.

First, it is confiscation. I don't care if your SSI policy says that if you tell the truth about it you get fired on the spot and that you must call it "voluntary surrender". It's confiscation whether you are ordered to say it's "voluntary surrender" or not. If it's not confiscation it's outright theft by the TSOs, and you don't want to go there.

Second, while what he did is against the rules, it's also the right thing to do. And that's not a contradiction. Most of your rules tell you to do the wrong thing, so violating this rule is doing the right thing. He failed to steal from a little kid. I think it's great that he failed to steal from a little kid because he did the right thing. You think it's awful that he failed to steal from a little kid because the rules tell him he must steal from a little kid. Get this - Right and Wrong is not the same as Obeying the Rules or Violating the Rules. The Rules are not the same as Morality. Sometimes the right thing to do is to disobey an immoral rule. Sometimes the wrong thing to do is obey a moral rule. You are applying the Nuremberg Defense, just like West did, and I'm calling you on it, just like I called him on it. The rules are wrong, Reed is right.

Blogger Bob said..."If polled, I’m sure that most officers would agree with your logic. However, we have a prohibited items list that we have to adhere to. If you would like the list to be changed, I suggest writing your congressman. We need their approval to change it"

......................Bob are you saying that each and every item on the prohibited list was placed there by congress?

But my real question is: From the article, the backscatter is the "next generation" MMW. From this TSA blog I seem to remember that they were two different technologies. amd that TSA was dropping the Backscatter. What is the real story?

Blogger Bob said..."If polled, I’m sure that most officers would agree with your logic. However, we have a prohibited items list that we have to adhere to. If you would like the list to be changed, I suggest writing your congressman. We need their approval to change it"*****

Bob please show me that Congressional order that says that its is illegal to fly with $10,000 inside the United States. But it is not illegal to posses $10,000 any other time. This policy was created by the TSA not by Congress.

Q: Why, just why, in the name of all that is reasonably engineered, did the TSA choose to go with those metal detectors that are so poorly designed that they trigger if a passenger brushes up against them?

A: Essentially, all metal detectors have fairly sensitive electronics in them, that are designed detect changes in the electromagnetic field when a passenger walks through them with metal. Obviously when the equipment is bumped the field can be artificially disturbed, hence an alarm. There are “hardened” versions of the equipment available that would minimize this type of alarm, but since TSA generally deploys these to a fairly controlled environment where direct contact with the equipment can be minimized, it is not worth the extra expense for the hardened units. (Thanks to Keith for that answer!)

First, it is confiscation. I don't care if your SSI policy says that if you tell the truth about it you get fired on the spot and that you must call it "voluntary surrender". It's confiscation whether you are ordered to say it's "voluntary surrender" or not. If it's not confiscation it's outright theft by the TSOs, and you don't want to go there.---------------------------------------

OK Ayn, here is a challenge for you. Next time you go through a checkpoint, bring your 22 ounce bottle of shampoo. When it is seen on the X-Ray, and the bag search TSO asks you about it, tell him you want to take it back to your car rather than abandon it. If he wont let you, ask for the supervisor. If he wont let you, ask for the Screening Manager. In any case, tell them you do not wish to abandon it. “confiscation” means that it is taken without your permission by an official because you are not allowed to have it. That will not happen to you. Therefore it is not confiscation. Procedure requires that they walk you and your prohibited item out of the sterile area and hand it over to you. What you do with it from there is totally and completely up to you.

I am not at the checkpoint right now, I can call it what I wish. I choose to call it what it is, and that is abandonment. Even if I were at the checkpoint, there is no rule about what we call it, SSI or not. It is in fact voluntarily surrendering an item, or abandonment of said item. Nothing more and nothing less. Don’t get stuck on semantics, it is what it is and nothing more. I escort people and their prohibited items out of the sterile area every day, because they made the choice to not abandon them. If they surrendered them it would still have been their choice. Just as you have “chosen” to misapply a term to meet some unknown agenda.

@ "The point of this post is not that you can't bring real life gernades on a plane. I think BB knows that travelers have that one figured out.

What BB is trying to say is checkpoints get closed almost weekly sometimes for stupid reasons.

You should thank Bob. Next time you fly, some idiot with a gernade paperweight just might be in front of you. Or not, thanks to this blog.

If this post prevents one flight from being delayed or canceled, its worth it."

###

The point of this post is that TSA's inability to identify non-weapons makes our air transport system vulnerable to denial of service attacks.

Imagine what a "terrorist" could do with $10,000 worth of $100 tickets and candy grenades. In the words of TSORon:

"Each time a replica or the real thing, inert or not, is found at the checkpoint it has a significant effect. They close the checkpoint. 15 minutes to several hours, depending. This has an effect on all the passengers who would like to get through the checkpoint, and of course the schedules of the affected aircraft, airlines, and entire airports down the line who were expecting things to run smoothly throughout the country. Its called a “ripple affect”, and tends to hose things up far and wide. Sometimes there is no ripple affect, but that’s pretty rare.

SO, ifs not just one or two people that choose to do something rather stupid, but entire airports and regions. A significant portion of that 2 million you write about."

TSM, been here.... said... Quoted:" TSOWilliamReed said... Sad news article, poor kid. On a side note a supervisor here in Ketchikan teams up with non TSA employees to mail passengers "Confiscated" items back to them."---------------------As a TSM, while what you are doing may be "nice" from a csr service standpoint, it is against policy and causes confusion when other airports follow policy and tell pax we don't return voluntarily surrenedered (we don't "confiscate) items and can open us up to other issues. If a pax surrenders an item it belongs to the gov't to dispose of as is properly. It is not up to you guys to decide to send it back. Also, you are now taking responsibility for that item and if it gets lost in the process, the TSA now has to replace it.Good csr service, poor application of the rules. i wouldn't broadcast on an open forum that you guys are disregarding rules. It's bad enough all the flack we take when we follow them.

July 30, 2009 10:24 AM

----------------

Sorry, should have been more specific. Basically this supervisor will inform the passenger that the woman at the coffee shop downstairs outside of the sterile area is known to mail items to passengers if they ask nicely. Nothing against policy for that.

"TSO William Reed deserves to be commended and promoted for his actions"

For this, as well as for posting under his full name and identifying his airport, which makes him both accountable and credible in a way that some of his fellow TSA employees who post here are not!

---------------------

Ok, I am TSO Jason Smith, from DFW. Now prove it.

How do you know the name he post under and the airport he list is both his real name and where he works?

Believe it or not, anyone can come on here, post under any name, and even claim they work for TSA - and it is never verified.

Sorry, but he is no more accountable than I when I post anonymously.

July 30, 2009 7:17 PM--------------

Hello Jason B Smith from DFW. I can prove you are who you say. How did I find out your middle initial is B? You are logged in the DHS email data bank, same way Bob found out I was a real TSO when I posted under my real name and he started an e-mail dialogue with me to help me post. Same goes with any other TSO's on here that don't believe I work for TSA look me up in the DHS email bank, im the only William Reed that works for TSA I am not hard to find.

TSM, Been here... said... It's funny that the same people who are always screaming that TSOs "ignore" or apply rules inconsistently are the ones who are now on here applauding a TSO for violating rules and mailing back prohibited items.

Just goes to show that you people are not satisfied unless a situation is in your favor, rules or not.

Hmmm... Sounds like exactly what you are accusing us of, doesn't it?

July 30, 2009 5:18 PM---------------

I never said I mailed anything to anyone. Actually we in Ketchikan have been told we are one of the strictest airports to fly through on a regular basis. Yet we are also told we are one of the nicest security checkpoints they have been through in a long time. This coming not from random passengers but our friends, family, and constant locals we deal with at our airport flying on a regular basis.

"I escort people and their prohibited items out of the sterile area every day, because they made the choice to not abandon them. If they surrendered them it would still have been their choice. Just as you have “chosen” to misapply a term to meet some unknown agenda."

Really, Ron? You would have walked me back to my car 1200 miles away to put an item back?

Too bad you weren't there to help me out, because the TSO in Lexington decided that the pair of scissors that passed inspection in Dallas was no longer passable.

Since I didn't have a car to return it to and my bags were already inaccessible and there wasn't an open post office nearby, I had to give up my scissors. You can call it "voluntary surrender" all you want, but the reality is that it was done under duress. Thats not right and you know it.

"TSO William Reed deserves to be commended and promoted for his actions"

For this, as well as for posting under his full name and identifying his airport, which makes him both accountable and credible in a way that some of his fellow TSA employees who post here are not!

---------------------

Ok, I am TSO Jason Smith, from DFW. Now prove it.

How do you know the name he post under and the airport he list is both his real name and where he works?

Believe it or not, anyone can come on here, post under any name, and even claim they work for TSA - and it is never verified.

Sorry, but he is no more accountable than I when I post anonymously.

July 30, 2009 7:17 PM--------------

Hello Jason B Smith from DFW. I can prove you are who you say. How did I find out your middle initial is B? You are logged in the DHS email data bank, same way Bob found out I was a real TSO when I posted under my real name and he started an e-mail dialogue with me to help me post. Same goes with any other TSO's on here that don't believe I work for TSA look me up in the DHS email bank, im the only William Reed that works for TSA I am not hard to find.

---------------------------

Which is sort of my point. I too have a DHS email, and I too have looked up peoples emails when needed.

Visitors to this blog, those who do not have a DHS email account have no access to this resource, and they sort of have to take our word that we are who we say we are. And since many of these visitors to this blog who are not DHS employees have said they do not trust us (TSA), why would they have any reason to trust who someone claims to be on here if they work for TSA?

So, 1. Only DHS employess have access to DHS email, 2. Many people on this blog do not trust TSA employees, so 3., why would they take anyone for their word if they use a fake "TSO" name and airport?

And my name is not Jason B. Smith. I do not work in DFW. lol Sorry. I picked that name out of the blue.

But this is proof that even our email resources is not conclusive evidence that someone is who they say they are.

So the pilot of an aircraft reports an strange feel in the aircraft upon landing and reports this to mechanics. the mechanic delays the plane 30 minutes (or more) to check the source of the problem. This happens everyday and travelers complain about the delay never thinking that the pilot is just concerned about the safety of himself, the next crew to take that aircraft out, and the passengers. The security line is no different. The pilot felt that something just wasn't right about the aircraft and reported that feeling. Our technology will only get us so far. I wish my brand new car would tell me that it was going to stall on the highway in the morning, I would choose to ride the bus. My point is...the TSA technology will only get them so far... the equipment and the operator are a team. If the human part of that team feels uneasy or unsure about what they are viewing, I as a traveler want them to question that feeling...I want that HUMAN to be sure there is no threat before I board..I may choose to take the bus.

Ayn R. Key said:First, it is confiscation. Stop lying to us. Or do your regulations tell you to tell us it's not confiscation? What paragraph and section say "You will never refer to confiscation as confiscation, only as 'voluntary surrender'"? Or is that information secret like the answer to every other non-sensical rule?

I love that TSA has a prohibited/permitted items list for you to follow and yet, it is TSA's fault that you brought the item(s) thru checkpoint. Plus, you are still given the opportunity to take advantage of several options to keep from having to surrender the item to TSA. If you don't want to use those options, it is not TSA's fault that you choose what you choose. If you don't have the time to use the options, again, NOT TSA's fault b/c you are warned that you should arrive around an hour and a half before your flight in case problems arise, whether it be a long line at the ticket counter (airline problem, not TSA), long security line, or secondary screenings (pat downs or bag checks). TSA has a job to do, you know before you fly what they do, so if you don't prepare accordingly, or you did, but forgot a prohibited item in your bag (for example), it is not TSA's fault you got held up for something YOU didn't prepare for or forgot.

TSO William Reed saidHello Jason B Smith from DFW. I can prove you are who you say. How did I find out your middle initial is B? You are logged in the DHS email data bank, same way Bob found out I was a real TSO when I posted under my real name and he started an e-mail dialogue with me to help me post. Same goes with any other TSO's on here that don't believe I work for TSA look me up in the DHS email bank, im the only William Reed that works for TSA I am not hard to find.

Reed, he is talking about people on this blog who are NOT TSO's. He is saying that there is no way for those people to ensure you are who you say you are, just by posting a full name and location. So, Jason Smith is right...posting Anonymously doesn't make you less credible as the TSO who posts under a full name b/c passengers on this blog have no way of proving if the name is a fake or not. They don't have access to our databank. Jason was in no way accusing that TSO's on here didn't believe you were not a TSO.

Anon said:Since I didn't have a car to return it to and my bags were already inaccessible and there wasn't an open post office nearby, I had to give up my scissors. You can call it "voluntary surrender" all you want, but the reality is that it was done under duress. Thats not right and you know it.

Again, not TSA's fault that you had them to begin with. Even if you got them thru the 1st airport, they were apparently too large and just got (mistakenly) overlooked by the 1st x-ray operator. If you got stopped the 1st time like you were suppose to, they would have been taken there. Still TSA's fault you had them? NO

It's kinda like getting stopped for speeding. You can't really say, "Well, I sped thru here yesterday and didn't get stopped". Point is, you were (knowingly) speeding and just didn't get caught the first time, but I guarantee, 95% of the time you are getting that speeding ticket when you ARE caught!!!!! ;)

Last time I flew, I only had carry-on luggage. I was only gone for a week, and I absolutely did not want to wait for my luggage after landing. Neither did the rest of the people I was traveling with, on business, and all only having carry on luggage.

So the question isn't why I need scissors on a plane, but why would anyone need scissors at any time at all ever.

Ayn R. Key said... First, it is confiscation. Stop lying to us. Or do your regulations tell you to tell us it's not confiscation? What paragraph and section say "You will never refer to confiscation as confiscation, only as 'voluntary surrender'"? Or is that information secret like the answer to every other non-sensical rule?

Second, he's actually doing the right thing with the confiscated items. You and the rest of the TSA should learn from him, not tell him to learn from you. TSO William Reed deserves to be commended and promoted for his actions, which is why I predict the revere will happen.

July 30, 2009 1:05 PM

__________________________________

Lying. How harsh. TSM is not lying. What part of this process do you not understand? When one is given a number of options to do with their property and they chose to have the TSO throw away their item. Yes, they are surrendering it. Whether you like it or not, the passenger is making that decision. There are many other options that the person can take. Not to mention the passengers should know the rule in the first place, so they are setting themselves up to make a choice about their property.

No that officer is not doing the right thing. It is not the resposibility of an officer or other employee of the airport to take a passengers property outside of security without that passenger present. The rules need to be followed, whether you like them or not! Now the next time that passenger has something he shouldn't he is going to get mad because someone won't send that item home for him. That officer should actually be reprimanded for not following the SOP.

Bob please show me that Congressional order that says that its is illegal to fly with $10,000 inside the United States. But it is not illegal to posses $10,000 any other time. This policy was created by the TSA not by Congress.

July 31, 2009 9:13 AM___________________________________

Hey genius, it is not illegal to travel with $10,000 inside the US. Quit twisting things around! No one want to hear it!

I've got to admit as a first time visitor I was suprised that anyone would even consider taking anything remotely resembling a grenade onto a plane. But...after reading a few comments I am satisfied that it now seems completely rational to do so...well to some people anyway!

"You also have the choice to send them home to yourself. Oops silly you, you could have kept them instead of surrendering them. Next time."

And how exactly does that work when there is neither a post office nor mailing materials nearby?

August 4, 2009 7:53 AM"

------------------------------Actually still not confiscation, still your choice. I have actually had people decide to miss their flight and rebook over a Swiss Army knife with "sentimental value". That was their choice.

This has happened more than once with various items. So you see, even if you are "claiming" you have no choice and as ridiculous as it seems to miss a flight over something like that, there IS still a choice.

"Actually still not confiscation, still your choice. I have actually had people decide to miss their flight and rebook over a Swiss Army knife with "sentimental value". That was their choice.

This has happened more than once with various items. So you see, even if you are "claiming" you have no choice and as ridiculous as it seems to miss a flight over something like that, there IS still a choice."

And you still miss the point.

A knife is on the verboten list and the passenger should not have brought it along. This is not a problem.

The scissors were not on the verboten list, AND they were passed thru the checkpoint at Dallas. How am I responsible for your TSOs failure to do their job?

"You also have the choice to send them home to yourself. Oops silly you, you could have kept them instead of surrendering them. Next time."

And how exactly does that work when there is neither a post office nor mailing materials nearby?

August 4, 2009 7:53 AM___________________________________

You can always send your material home to yourself. There are mail boxes right outside of the checkpoints where you can fill out paperwork and throw it into the box and send it home. You learned something new today!

A knife is on the verboten list and the passenger should not have brought it along. This is not a problem.

The scissors were not on the verboten list, AND they were passed thru the checkpoint at Dallas. How am I responsible for your TSOs failure to do their job?___________________________________

The scissors are on the verboten list when they are over a certain size. Obviously yours exceeded this limit because you surrendered them :). Just because something was missed at one airport does not mean that they are now allowed. TSO's are human. Just like you. Mistakes happen. So they thought at one place that the scissors were ok and then realized at another that they were not allowed. Who cares, get over it. Either way you were not supposed to have them.Quit talking about things that are not of any importance.

"The scissors were not on the verboten list, AND they were passed thru the checkpoint at Dallas. How am I responsible for your TSOs failure to do their job?"

Scissors over a certain size are on the "verboten list", images on a xray are slightly distorted, depending on bag orientaion, xray model, Xray emitter postion. Determining Size can be difficult at times. If things appear to be small enough, we generaly dont do a bag check. Same thing goes the other way, ive seen scissors that look like huge shears, but they where only about 2 1/2in. So the TSO didnt necessarily fail to do his job.

You can always send your material home to yourself. There are mail boxes right outside of the checkpoints where you can fill out paperwork and throw it into the box and send it home. You learned something new today!

August 4, 2009 1:16 PM

..............................Is this the case at every airport, every checkpoint through out the country?

Second, he's actually doing the right thing with the confiscated items. You and the rest of the TSA should learn from him, not tell him to learn from you. TSO William Reed deserves to be commended and promoted for his actions, which is why I predict the revere will happen.

Why should it be TSA's responsibility to fix a passenger's mistake. Officers are there to screen people, not to send prohibited items back to passengers. TSA is not the Post Office... Two separate Government entities. Passengers can look up what is prohibited before they pack their bags. It's really not a hard concept.

"Passengers can look up what is prohibited before they pack their bags. It's really not a hard concept."

As has been demonstrated dozens and dozens of times on this blog, TSA's various and contradictory lists are useless as guides since screeners can make up whatever regulations they wish to at the checkpoint. It's really not a hard concept.

The scissors are on the verboten list when they are over a certain size. Obviously yours exceeded this limit because you surrendered them :). Just because something was missed at one airport does not mean that they are now allowed. TSO's are human. Just like you. Mistakes happen. So they thought at one place that the scissors were ok and then realized at another that they were not allowed.

Or, the TSO at the first place was correct and the scissors were OK, and the TSO at the second place was wrong. Unfortunately, there's no way to know which scenario accurately describes what happened.

It's entirely possible that the scissors were too long, and the passenger was at fault. It's also entirely possible that the scissors were just fine, and the TSO was at fault. Either way, the passenger loses.

"You can always send your material home to yourself. There are mail boxes right outside of the checkpoints where you can fill out paperwork and throw it into the box and send it home. You learned something new today!

August 4, 2009 1:16 PM

..............................Is this the case at every airport, every checkpoint through out the country?

"The scissors were not on the verboten list, AND they were passed thru the checkpoint at Dallas. How am I responsible for your TSOs failure to do their job?"

Scissors over a certain size are on the "verboten list", images on a xray are slightly distorted, depending on bag orientaion, xray model, Xray emitter postion. Determining Size can be difficult at times. If things appear to be small enough, we generaly dont do a bag check. Same thing goes the other way, ive seen scissors that look like huge shears, but they where only about 2 1/2in. So the TSO didnt necessarily fail to do his job."

-----------------------------

I have found it hard to explain to people that have no experience working on the various x-rays TSA uses how much of your job involves interpretation.

Many people think, "my bag went through the x-ray, therefore they know about everything in the inside". This is not true. But this is sometimes why your bag is checked - to identify a specific item that presents itself on the x-ray screen as a possible prohibited item. And this is why a bag that was cleared one time may be checked the next. So when you ask the TSO, "why was this item/my bag ok at this other airport", this is the reason why. Different people make different judgement calls.

X-ray is a skill. Your skill can improve over time, and it usually does. Someone who has spent 2 years on x-ray is much better than a person who has 1 year, usually, and so on. You may not like this, but there it is. Can any of you name a profession where this is not true?

As a side note, some of you have said TSA expects passengers to be perfect, thus you expect us to be perfect. TSO's do not expect you to be perfect.

The example of your scissors is proof of that.

The first time you sent your bag through the x-ray the TSO manning the machine saw them, and decided they were close enough in size to go. Another x-ray operator later did not. What the first x-ray operator should have done was to have your scissors checked for size. They did not; they cut you some slack.

By the way, this happens all the time with LGA's. Do you have any idea how many passengers keep LGAs in their bag? We do see them all. LGAs are about the easiest item to see. TSA SOP states all LGAs must be pulled from the bag. Even the smallest one left in, according to SOP, should result in your bag being checked. However, TSOs very often let it slide if they believe the LGAs are small enough to adhere to the policy of size. This is proof that we do not expect passengers to do everything perfectly - we actually give passengers breaks all the time.

Now lets see if some of you are honest with yourself. How many of you have left LGA's or something else in your bag that should have resulted in a check, and the TSO working the x-ray let it go? If any of you can say this has happened to you, then you have experience that we do not expect you to be perfect.

How many of you have left LGA's or something else in your bag that should have resulted in a check, and the TSO working the x-ray let it go? If any of you can say this has happened to you, then you have experience that we do not expect you to be perfect.

Part of the problem with this scenario is that, when it happens, it's transparent to the passenger. In those cases, if you don't inform the passenger that you're letting it go, they leave the checkpoint thinking that everything they had was acceptable. Then, when another TSO actually enforces the rules on some future encounter, we have the potential for strife.

"You can always send your material home to yourself. There are mail boxes right outside of the checkpoints where you can fill out paperwork and throw it into the box and send it home. You learned something new today!

August 4, 2009 1:16 PM

..............................Is this the case at every airport, every checkpoint through out the country?

You must be a well traveled person to know these things!"

-------------------------------

dont have to be a well traveled person to know this.

August 5, 2009 11:44 AM

....................Then you are seeing something that I am not.

The airports I have been through recently did not have these features.

So please tell us how you know this and how to locate these mailing centers at all airports.

I've been reading through the 'scissor debate' and I have to conclude this.If its verboten its verboten end of. The guy is doing his job confiscating them.What the hell is someone doing taking scissors onto a plane in their hand luggage anyway?I know the recession is hitting hard but come on now, hairdressers touting for business on a passenger aircraft is taking it a tad too far!

"How many of you have left LGA's or something else in your bag that should have resulted in a check, and the TSO working the x-ray let it go? If any of you can say this has happened to you, then you have experience that we do not expect you to be perfect.

Part of the problem with this scenario is that, when it happens, it's transparent to the passenger. In those cases, if you don't inform the passenger that you're letting it go, they leave the checkpoint thinking that everything they had was acceptable. Then, when another TSO actually enforces the rules on some future encounter, we have the potential for strife."

------------------

You are correct that this may cause a problem, but as I see and understand it, this is a problem caused by the passenger. I will explain.

I have had family members and friends who have been/are police officers. They see people speeding all the time. Some times they pull them over and ticket them, some times they pull them over and give them a warning, and sometimes they just let them go.

In the last case, I do not believe you could make a successful argument that the action (or lack of action) on part of the police officer will eventually cause a conflict with the other person because they are under the assumption they can speed becasue they were not pulled over or warned. The idea that if we "let it go" without telling the passenger they were incorrect is itself incorrect. It is up to the passenger to understand the rules. I say this also realizing that it is up to the TSO to be polite and respectful, that it is up to the TSO to understand that some people do not understand the rules.

LGA policy is clearly marked on TSAs web site, and before every checkpoint. Information a passenger needs to travel is easily available to them.

If the passenger makes the assumption that despite what is clearly post LGA policy is something else, well, what do they say about assumptions?

On the other note, at the various airports I have worked, it would shut the checkpoint down if we checked each and every bag that a passenger left their LGA in. It would not be possible to move pepole quickly through the checkpoint if we checked everyone who violated this policy. You look at the x-ray screen, and based upon experience decided if the LGA's you see are the correct size or too large, or if there are too many LGAs despite their size.

If after 9/11 people don't see the need to leave even the slightest of questionable items at home, than they should consider driving to their destination. Every time I leave a checkpoint I appreciate when I'm searched. I thank TSA. I do so because I know they are keeping the planes safe. Someone who wants to bring replicas of dangerous items on a plane should consider using the money they bought for a plane ticket to see a psychologist.

Quoted:" Jim Huggins said... How many of you have left LGA's or something else in your bag that should have resulted in a check, and the TSO working the x-ray let it go? If any of you can say this has happened to you, then you have experience that we do not expect you to be perfect. --------------Part of the problem with this scenario is that, when it happens, it's transparent to the passenger. In those cases, if you don't inform the passenger that you're letting it go, they leave the checkpoint thinking that everything they had was acceptable. Then, when another TSO actually enforces the rules on some future encounter, we have the potential for strife.

August 5, 2009 3:22 PM---------------------Finally, we agree on something!You are 100% right. This is what causes a large deal of "strife". However, if we told the pax each time we let something go based on our experience, we would slow the CP down (might as well do the bag check then) AND we would be admitting that even though we are using our discretion/training, etc. we are still violating SOP. So basically, if your scissor is allowed at one Cp, denied at another - GET OVER IT AND DEAL!!

Finally, we agree on something!You are 100% right. This is what causes a large deal of "strife". However, if we told the pax each time we let something go based on our experience, we would slow the CP down (might as well do the bag check then) AND we would be admitting that even though we are using our discretion/training, etc. we are still violating SOP. So basically, if your scissor is allowed at one Cp, denied at another - GET OVER IT AND DEAL!!_______

The problem is that if it is not accepted at the first (home) airport, you can take it back to your car, When it is not accepted at the returning airport, you have few options (none good)

LGA policy is clearly marked on TSAs web site, and before every checkpoint. Information a passenger needs to travel is easily available to them.

And folks have noted here, any number of times, that this isn't sufficient.

The LGA policy on the TSA's website is inconsistent; depending on which page you read, the limit on individual items is either 3 ounces or 3.4 ounces. (Yes, I know the real limit is 3.4 ounces ... but only because I spend way too much time here. I doubt the average member of the public knows the difference.)

Also, TSOs have the ability to prohibit items not listed on the TSA website. (Do I really need to bring up DVD-Battery-Pack-Guy, or Mr. Gel-pack, again?)

It is up to the passenger to understand the rules.

Yes, passengers need to understand the rules. But not every TSO understand the rules, either. Sometimes, when they ban an item, they're wrong. But when a passenger and a TSO disagree about an item, the passenger always loses. It's not fair to say that it's always the passenger's fault when they're forced to surrender an item.

TSM, Been ... writes:

If we told the pax each time we let something go based on our experience, we would slow the CP down (might as well do the bag check then) AND we would be admitting that even though we are using our discretion/training, etc. we are still violating SOP.

So, which is it, then? Is it a violation of your SOP to use your discretion in admitting a questionable item, or isn't it? If you're not supposed to admit questionable items, and you do anyways, you're only creating more grief for your fellow TSOs who actually follow the SOP -- and then catch flak from passengers (not "pax") who can't figure out why TSA enforces its rules inconsistently.

So basically, if your scissor is allowed at one Cp, denied at another - GET OVER IT AND DEAL!!

In my limited life experience, I've encountered very few people who react positively when someone else tells them to "get over it".

Feel free to pass that around to the other TSOs for training. Its apparent they need it.

The below links are for "toys" and replicas as well. Please peruse these at your leisure and maybe you will have a better understanding of what are considered replica weapons. The ones listed look enough like the real thing that most of us would say a word, then do that word immediately after we said it if it were removed from a bag on the airplane. Hence beginning the aforementioned scrum, beat down, emergency actions by FAMs and or flight crews.

Any day of the week, shutting down a line would be preferred in my opinion. As an aware civilian, I would ALWAYS like to be held up a few more minutes than to have a terrorist or crazy do something bad again. It's too bad feel they need to put schedule above safety for all. Keep up the good work TSA! Thanks!!!

Anon sez - "Seems the point is that TSO's can't tell the difference between a toy and a weapon.

Some much for the highly trained line."

Obviously it was too much to ask for you to pay attention to the links I posted, nice of you to keep up Anon. It is easy to see that some replicas are able to generate a problematic response, therefore replicas are not allowed.

GSOLTSO said... Anon sez - "Seems the point is that TSO's can't tell the difference between a toy and a weapon.

Some much for the highly trained line."

Obviously it was too much to ask for you to pay attention to the links I posted, nice of you to keep up Anon. It is easy to see that some replicas are able to generate a problematic response, therefore replicas are not allowed.

WestTSA Blog Team

August 13, 2009 4:39 AM

.......................Sorry, seems your the one that can't keep up Mr. Government employee.

Any account of TSOs playing with the confiscated items is hearsay. I have seen nor heard any proof of of this. I'm sure you'll believe what you want to believe.

This is probably what you wanted to hear:

For those of you who take things way to literally, this is a joke.

In a setting that would have made even the most experienced swashbuckler envious, one officer with a gun and another with a sword jumped from table to table and swung from walk through metal detectors to launch themselves into a wanding coral which doubled as an arena with it's transparent Plexiglas walls....

GSOLTSO said... Anon sez - "Seems the point is that TSO's can't tell the difference between a toy and a weapon.

Some much for the highly trained line."

Obviously it was too much to ask for you to pay attention to the links I posted, nice of you to keep up Anon. It is easy to see that some replicas are able to generate a problematic response, therefore replicas are not allowed.

WestTSA Blog Team

August 13, 2009 4:39 AM.................................

I agree with this statement................................."TSA has a responsibility to keep us safe and I fully understand that, and I know Maria fully understands that as well," said cousin Michelle Chao. "But there's a point at which it becomes an abuse, when you take toys, clearly a toy from a child, that's an abuse of power."

Anon sez - "Sorry, seems your the one that can't keep up Mr. Government employee.

We are talking about Disney World 16th Century shaped toys.

So your telling me that you cannot tell that apart from a replica?

How sad!"

Not having seen the actual toy sword up close, I will defer to the people there. I commented on policy and gave links to illustrate why the policy is the way it is. I HAVE seen a couple of the replica toys sold at Disney World and would not allow them through the checkpoint because they are real looking enough to give pause. Do you have a link to a picture of the actual toy that was surrendered? If so I would like to see it, then (and only then) would I be willing to weigh in on whether I would have allowed the item to go.

He Bob, did they get video of that scene? Did anyone have sweet one liners at each natural pause in the action?

I'm not calling her a liar because I wasn't there to see whether this did or did not happen. There are no photos or video that have been presented to prove this. No other eyewitness accounts... Have you heard of the word "alleged?"

I could claim I saw a UFO last night. After stating my claim and having no proof to back it up, it's up to you to decide whether you believe me or not.

In this case, you have decided to believe the eyewitness account. That's fine, but it's still not a fact that it happened.

I'm not calling her a liar because I wasn't there to see whether this did or did not happen. There are no photos or video that have been presented to prove this. No other eyewitness accounts... Have you heard of the word "alleged?"

I could claim I saw a UFO last night. After stating my claim and having no proof to back it up, it's up to you to decide whether you believe me or not.

In this case, you have decided to believe the eyewitness account. That's fine, but it's still not a fact that it happened.

Is that where we're at now? An eyewitness account is fact?

Blogger BobTSA Blog Team

August 13, 2009 11:44 AM.........................Does this airport have video monitoring of the checkpoint?

Has an internal investigation been completed by TSA?

Have all TSA employees at that checkpoint been questioned?

Have the TSO's in question been interviewed about the incident?

Was anyone put on the box to see if they were telling the truth?

What has TSA done to resolve the questions this incident raises?

Just to blow it off like you have indicates that nothing has been done nor will TSA do anything.

I'm not calling her a liar because I wasn't there to see whether this did or did not happen. There are no photos or video that have been presented to prove this. No other eyewitness accounts... Have you heard of the word "alleged?"

I could claim I saw a UFO last night. After stating my claim and having no proof to back it up, it's up to you to decide whether you believe me or not.

In this case, you have decided to believe the eyewitness account. That's fine, but it's still not a fact that it happened.

Is that where we're at now? An eyewitness account is fact?

Blogger BobTSA Blog Team

August 13, 2009 11:44 AM...................Sorry for the second post but...

People go to prison based on eyewitness accounts.

They are used in courts of law.

So without any information to disput an account of the eyewitness it is the most reliable information available at this time.

So yes I will believe it until other information is presented to bring that claim into question.

You specifically said: "Any account of TSOs playing with the confiscated items is hearsay." I provided a published account from an eyewitness. If you want to discredit that witness, or claim the testimony is uncorroborated, that's your prerogative. But I don't think you can claim that the account itself is hearsay.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and the definition of "hearsay" is probably a legal one ...)

What I wondered was I do they come up with the list of items to ban. Why can you bring thing like pens, paper, Laptops, small electronics. I mean you can bring so many crazy things that could be dangerous, but can’t bring nail clippers, or lotion over 4oz? Ok I guess. Also I wonder why the lines are so long and that you have to arrive hours earlier?

You specifically said: "Any account of TSOs playing with the confiscated items is hearsay." I provided a published account from an eyewitness. If you want to discredit that witness, or claim the testimony is uncorroborated, that's your prerogative. But I don't think you can claim that the account itself is hearsay.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and the definition of "hearsay" is probably a legal one ...)"

------------------------------

You are incorrect, this account is an account of hearsay.

Person 1 says something based on what they experienced. Person 2 uses that information without having direct experience with the incident. It does not matter that it was published, it is still hearsay. The only person it is not hearsay to are those directly involved.

Person 1 says something based on what they experienced. Person 2 uses that information without having direct experience with the incident. It does not matter that it was published, it is still hearsay. The only person it is not hearsay to are those directly involved.

Well, if that's the standard you're going to use, we may as well shut down this entire blog, as well as the "Got Feedback" system. After all, anything posted here is a second-hand account published by TSA, based on a report submitted by a first-hand observer (a blog poster). Obviously, then, everything in this blog (including the postings from TSA employees, by the way) is second-hand, and should be disregarded as hearsay.

I'll assume you mean has anyone taken a lie detector test to see if they were honest or not regardin the sitution you are referring to? If so, how can you of all people say that? You always bring up how you think TSA violates constitutional rights, then ask why the 5th admendment of TSA employees are not violated? Did I understand you right?

I'll assume you mean has anyone taken a lie detector test to see if they were honest or not regardin the sitution you are referring to? If so, how can you of all people say that? You always bring up how you think TSA violates constitutional rights, then ask why the 5th admendment of TSA employees are not violated? Did I understand you right?

August 17, 2009 8:01 PM.....................Are you saying that it would violate a TSO's rights to be questioned in an investigation of a workplace incident?

Where are the security tapes of that checkpoint?

What I am suggesting is that since this particular incident would make TSA look bad once again that NO INVESTIGATION was done.

In other words, TSA covering up for its employees.

There was an eyewitness report of the incident. That eyewitness reported what they saw to a news reporter.

The topic really seamed to move from hand grenade replicas and the sort to bottles of liquid. I completely understand why these types of items should and do through up a red flag. If some one stood up on a flight with a "replica" hand grenade in their hand would you know the difference? Some using a replica to try and take control would be a real possability. Better safe then sorry I guess.

Such Prohibitd items cant be carried on board,especially in hold baggages.The screening system should be able to detect,and deter carriage.Equipments used for screening should be caliberated and should meet such detection requirments.Many carry such items without being aware,others dont realise the consequences of carrying such items on boardPassengers and screeners must be made aware of prohibited items as well as the multiplying effects of carrying such items on board.

I understand concern about x-rays of items that are simply replicas of hand grenades, etc. However, my boyfriend, an ex-marine, was wearing a belt with a buckle that was a hollowed out, pewter cast semi-replica of a hand grenade and did NOT try to put it in his baggage. He removed his belt at security and upon walikng through was summoned by a TSA employee. Being that he wore his ballcap identifying him as a marine, the agent said, "Hey devil dog, you should know better than to bring this." They both chuckled and he admitted he just didn't think about it as he was running late that morning and he had actually worn the belt before at other airports and was never questioned. The agent suggested he run and out it in his checked baggage (which this blog atamently advises AGAINST) or just throw it away. He knew he would miss his flight if he tried to run back to his checked bag so he handed it over. The agent was nice and he was understanding and as I said they all chuckled about the situation. 6 months later he receives a letter from TSA informing him they intend to fine him for said violation. How ridiculous! Why not tell him then he was going to be asessed a fine? He was not asked to sign anything, not arrested, not detained, and was even sent off with a smile to catch his plane. No police were called, the lines were not closed, and the incident took less than 1 min from beginning to end. How does TSA feel this particular situation warrants a fine 6 MONTHS LATER?!! I accidentally brought a large bottle of lotion through security when it was inadvertently placed in my laptop bag because I didn't want it to leak in my checked luggage. I knew better but had a brief lapse of memory at the last minute. I felt silly when they pulled out the lotion because I realized I wasn't thinking when I moved it to my carry on. Not a big deal. The bottle could have been filled with liquid explosive for all they knew but I never received a violation. Can you explain to me how the TSA has the GALL to treat people this way? A former marine especially! I am completely disgusted. It sounds to me like TSA has found their own little crooked way to get money in the sinking economy. So, what do you have to say for yourselves now?

Bob once again stated the basic premise of the TSA and the Federal government: NONE of the American people are to be trusted with anything. To the Federal government and its agents, we are ALL terrorists, maniacs, mass killers.

And that is why we are all treated as such at airports.

And this is why going to an airport and being subjected to TSA treatment is an insult and a humilitation to Americans. We are trusted to pay our taxes for outrgeous Federal government programs, to serve as the police force of the world, to spill OUR blood for foreign nations and ideologies without complaint, to die for our 'country' and for the perpetuation of the Federal government. But we are NOT trusted to board an airplane without mayhem and murder in our minds & hearts. Instead we are scanned, stripped of our clothes, groped, ordered about, admonished for our lousy attitudes when subjected to all this, and threatened with detention, arrest and prosecution.

It is a confiscation of private property. The TSA can claim it is 'lawful', but the Federal government does a LOT of things that are 'lawful' that are egregious, unethical, immoral and confiscatory.

The Obama Administration just put forth an argument to the U.S. Supreme Court that it has every right & authority to require EVERY American to purchase an insurance policy from a private company. Why? Simply because the Federal government has determined that it is 'necessary' to do so.

Of course, if this is accepted there is no limit to the authority of the Federal government to require us to buy anything at all.

By the time you get to TSA checkpoints, it is FAR too late to get prohibited carry-on items into your checked baggage. When you first get to the airport, the first thing that happens is that you are separated from you checked baggage, which goes into the distant bowels of he airport right away.

By the time you get to the TSA checkpoint, that checked baggage is long gone down there somewhere.

Someone wrote that at some airports there is some mailing service outside the checkpoint where you can mail an item to yourself or wherever. Of course, those 'services' are enormous ripoffs--the smallest envelope provided by one service at DIA costs $9.00, and that was several years ago. And when you leave the security area to do that, you have to go back through TSA security, which means you have to go to the BACK of the line. If that line is 45 minutes long, you are dead meat as far as making your flight is concerned.

If you refuse to let the TSA steal your property, you can always be escorted out of the secure area, whatever that is, and simply do not board your flight. Of course that will cost you hundreds of dollars or perhaps thousands--the cost of your non-refundable airfare, the cost of a flight-change fee, which is now usually a minimum of $100 or even $200 by our idiotic, lascivious airlines.

These were my 'choices' when the TSA insisted on confiscating my pocketknife with its 2" blade--the same pocketknife that had been through several TSA checkpoints in the past--even handled by TSA agents at checkpoints and handed back to me.

They can talk about 'lawful confiscation', but it is really extortion. If you don't give it to us, it will cost you hundreds, even thousands, of dollars.

Question for Anonymous...You stated when your Marine boyfriend brought a grenade belt buckle "The agent was nice and he was understanding and as I said they all chuckled about the situation. 6 months later he receives a letter from TSA informing him they intend to fine him for said violation. How ridiculous! Why not tell him then he was going to be asessed a fine? He was not asked to sign anything, not arrested, not detained, and was even sent off with a smile to catch his plane. No police were called, the lines were not closed, and the incident took less than 1 min from beginning to end."

My questions is if this all took place in less than 1 minute and nobody was called and no incident report was generated, how did TSA know who to send the fine to. Seems like some of your story may not be accurate. Before regulatory assesses a fine, they must have an incident report generated by the Supervisor which would include the party's name, address, etc and what actually happened. By your account, the person who was the divesting officer just told him to through it away and nothing else happened. The regulatory department (who are the ones you would have gotten a fine from) would not have any knowledge of this and could not assess a fine to someone they knew nothing about. Just curious what the whole story is.